- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Santa Barbara Council Backs Veronica Meadows — Again
In what’s beginning to resemble a game of ping-pong, the Santa Barbara City Council on Tuesday approved — for the second time in a year and a half — the development of 25 single-family homes in Las Positas Valley, despite a judge’s ruling in December revoking the earlier approval.
The 5-2 decision most likely means that opponents of what is called the Veronica Meadows project will take the matter back to court.
“I think because (of the decision) we’re going to get sued, and we’re going to lose,” Councilman Das Williams after Tuesday night’s vote. Williams, along with Councilwoman Helene Schneider, voted against the project.
The plan, which over the course of eight years has wound up pitting neighbors against environmentalists, is to build most of the two-story homes on 15 acres of brushy green space across from Elings Park. In return, developer Mark Lee would spend his own money to restore the nearby Arroyo Burro Creek, preserve open space and bring bicycle and hiking trails to the area.
Many of the neighbors like the plan, as the trails would allow them access to Arroyo Burro Beach without having to get in their cars or walk along the shoulder of fast-moving Las Positas Road. Of the 22 people who spoke to the council about the project, 13 were favor of it, most of them neighbors.
Thirty-eight-year Hidden Valley resident Dennis Peterson said for him the project will enhance the safety of his neighborhood.
“I would sure like to get off that road,” he said, referring to Las Positas. “I’m afraid I’m going to get hit someday, and that path would be a godsend.”
Neighbor Ken Sterling prefaced his comments in favor of the project by saying he is an environmentally conscious person who drove a Prius “before it was cool and fashionable.”
“My grandfather told me something wise: Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth,” he said.
But the environmentalists who successfully sued the city blasted the project on several fronts, saying it is too much development for such an environmentally sensitive area. They also say the project’s considerable distance from downtown would encourage more car travel.
“This is the biggest example of dumb growth the city has deliberated in decades,” said planning activist David Pritchett.
Specifically at issue was Lee’s proposal to build a bridge over the creek leading into the development. In an official study known as an environmental impact report, a biologist decided that the bridge — which would be located off Las Positas Road, directly across the street from the entrance to Elings Park — would impose a significant negative impact on the creek habitat.
The City Council nonetheless approved the project in December 2006, deciding that the promised benefits to the public and environment outweighed the negatives. (City officials also cited how another expert had questioned the EIR findings.) A month after the approval, the Citizens Planning Association filed suit against Lee and the city.
Last December, Superior Court Judge Judge Thomas Anderle ruled in favor of the opponents. In his highly technical ruling, he said the project violated the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Specifically, when biologists find that a proposed development will potentially have a certain high degree of impact on the environment (known as a “Class 1 Impact”), agencies must explore other options.
On Tuesday, city staff presented a revised EIR to the council that officially considered another — the other — option. In this one, there’d be no bridge, and therefore only one way in and out of the development: by driving to the end of Las Positas Road and up the currently quiet Alan Road.
The revised EIR found that this option, too, was a Class 1 Impact.
On Tuesday, this left the City Council in the position of deciding on the lesser of two evils. However, it also had the option to just say no outright — a position strenuously advocated by Williams and Schneider.
Adding an element of political intrigue, Tuesday’s vote seemed to hinge on one man: new Councilman Dale Francisco.
Because the project involves annexing what is now Santa Barbara County land, passage requires a supermajority five out of seven votes. When the project passed the first time, it was a 5-2 vote, again with Williams and Schneider dissenting. In November, Francisco unseated Councilman Brian Barnwell, and so on Tuesday all eyes were on him.
Francisco, who campaigned on a slow-growth ticket, on Tuesday said he believes the proposed Veronica Meadows project is reasonable.
“Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I have the idea in the long run it’s more likely for this to be developed for residential development than the city acquiring it for a park,” he said, adding that the project doesn’t seem very dense in comparison to others in the pipeline nearby.
The other council members held firm to their earlier convictions.
Mayor Marty Blum said she supports the project with the bridge largely because something needs to be done about the dangers of Las Positas Road. She also objected to an argument stating that the city should try to decipher how scaled-down the project could be and still be economically feasible.
“I don’t like looking at other people’s checkbooks,” she said.
Speaking on behalf of the Citizens Planning Association, executive director Naomi Kovacs said she understands the position of the neighbors. But she added that they didn’t seem keen on working collaboratively with her organization.
“We tried to meet with them and were dis-invited,” she said.
She also pointedly reminded the council of the judge’s decision.
“Adherence to the law is why CPA filed and won the lawsuit,” she said.
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at rkuznia@noohawk.com.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 06.18.08 @ 04:39 AM
25 more single-family market rate homes in a city where the biggest issue is supposedly affordable housing; how does this make any sense at all? I guess we need ever more rich residents who can shop at the chi-chi shops at La Cumbre. CEQA, schmequa, it’s all about the money, not sustainability or the environment. And Pritchett is right on this one—dumb growth at its dumbest.
» on 06.18.08 @ 04:51 AM
I live in the Stonecreek condos adjacent to where they plan to develop this land. I wonder how Mayor Blum plans to relocate the dozen or so homeless people that are currently living in the woods where they aim to put these new homes?
» on 06.18.08 @ 05:56 AM
Also keep in mind that the developer at one point proposed a more dense development that included workforce housing but he was sent back to the drawing board by the City to end up with more of what we don’t need (high-end detached single-family houses). This is a waste of valuable land.
» on 06.18.08 @ 06:56 AM
Here’s a thought that MC Confrontation should like. Let the Veronica Meadows land and the Miramar land become homeless encampments. Save the government a lot in planning staff expenses. Save those who would save us from the evil godless devil-worshipping developers a lot of campaigning and complaining. Of course, someone has to pay the owners fair market value for their privately owned property. Or, like traffic laws for bicycles, has Santa Barbara suspended that rule also?
» on 06.18.08 @ 07:50 AM
i think lots of people will benefit from the bike & ped connection between hendry’s beach, elings park, and the douglas preserve. it really expands the recreational opportunity of the area, especially for the people who live nearby. not to mention fixing the dilapidated creek!!!
» on 06.18.08 @ 08:33 AM
The City easily can secure grant funds to install a bike and pedestrian bridge just like the one across Arroyo Burro Lagoon, to the trail up to Douglas Family Preserve.
Such a bridge easily can go there across Arroyo Burro instead of a huge bridge that holds trucks.
Even Santa Barbara city is not so impotent it cannot find the funds and install a benign bridge to achieve the same purpose to connect to Elings Park.
» on 06.18.08 @ 09:15 AM
When are we going to stop calling the “planning activists” environmentalists. The idea that all new housing development on the South Coast is bad, which is really what Citizens Planning Association has been standing for the past 30 years, has nothing to do with “environmentalism.” It has to do with wanting to exclude others. Using the environmental review process to your political advantage is not “environmentalism.” If we had built some reasonable amount of workforce housing here on the South Coast, we wouldn’t all be sitting in daily traffic jams, polluting the air, and watching the quality of life of our workforce deteriorate. All because Citizens Planning Association, among others, has been successful in exporting our housing needs to other places.
Noozhawk, wake up and stop grandstanding about “environmentalism!” The true environmentalists are the ones who recognize that exporting our housing needs is having a bigger toll on the environment than providing for it locally, andI give those folks tons of credit. I am sorry to say that Citizen’s Planning Association is not in that camp.
» on 06.19.08 @ 03:20 AM
Citizens Planning Association is a big reason we have, up until recently, enjoyed a fine quality of life in SB. They have fought to keep this place unique and special, and today’s combined forces of capital-rich builders who want to keep building and their friends on the left who want to keep going on about the “housing crisis” have begun to obliterate what Santa Barbara is all about. Don’t blame CPA—they’re dedicated to keeping Santa Barbara, and holding fast to it.
More Local News »
Residents Get Look at Master Plan for Santa Barbara
An open house kicks off a public-comment period designed to help shape the future of the city
Ninth Circuit Court to Rehear Goleta Rent-Control Case
The appeal on 'regulatory taking' could determine the constitutionality of the city's ordinance
Bob Wilcher: Guaranteed Weight Loss
Eat 500 fewer calories and exercise for one hour each day and enjoy the results
Santa Barbara Developer Fess Parker Dies at Age 85
The local actor was also the namesake of Fess Parker DoubleTree Resort and Fess Parker Winery
Santa Barbara’s Water Has a Rich History, a Complex Future
Despite modern science and technology, basic challenges of delivery and storage transcend eras
Weather: Fog/Mist 54.0º
Search Noozhawk »
